Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations: 'Free and read-only' confirms cost profile, 'Never calls GitHub or LinkedIn' is a concrete side-effect guarantee, and the section glosses disclose critical interpretation caveats ('not confirmed employment', 'proves nothing either way', 'maybe a namesake', coverage 'never a complete roster'). Those warnings are exactly the context an agent needs to report results honestly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the key framing ('Free and read-only'), then the resource, sections and the onward call. It is one very dense run-on sentence, and the parenthetical caveats make it harder to scan, but no sentence is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers identity inputs, section semantics, paging and interpretation caveats. It does not describe the shape of the returned payload or how map_id and request_id relate, which keeps it from a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With only 20% schema coverage the description must carry the load, and it does: it defines the meaning and caveats of every section enum value and explains that page/section retrieve one section 50 at a time, plus that either map_id or request_id identifies the map. The workspace parameter is left to the schema's own description, a minor gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States the specific verb and resource ('a company map by map_id or request_id') and enumerates exactly what the map contains (orgs, coverage, and the six named sections). An agent can distinguish this read tool from start_company_map and resolve_company without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent onward: 'to go on with a map, call start_company_map with its request_id', and gives paging guidance ('give section and page for one section 50 at a time'). It doesn't state when not to use the tool or what to do when neither map_id nor request_id is known, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.